Ambassador Mr .Ronen Sen's interview with the Indian News Magazine Outlook on India-US Nuclear deal

EXCLUSIVE: INTERACTION 
"Linking The Indo-US Deal With Iran Will Be Completely Counter-Productive" 

India's ambassador to the USA with experience as secretary to the Atomic Energy Commission of India who played a crucial role in stitching up the 123 Agreement on the deal... Ashish Kumar Sen interviews Ronen Sen

Outlook, August 13, 2007

Ronen Sen, India's ambassador to the United States, is an old hand at conducting intense negotiations, having earlier represented the country in Mexico, Russia, Germany and Britain. But it was his experience as secretary to the Atomic Energy Commission of India that served him well over two years and two days of difficult negotiations with the US over a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. Sen's role in stitching up the deal was crucial. Days before the text of the 123 Agreement was made public, the Indian ambassador sat down with Ashish Kumar Sen in an exclusive face-to-face interaction. Excerpts:

Is the US committed to ensuring an uninterrupted supply of fuel to India?

The agreement of March 2, 2006, is fully reflected in the 123 Agreement. We have clear-cut assurances on fuel supplies. We are committed to safeguards in perpetuity; these are balanced by assurances of fuel supplies through the reactors' lifetime.

Will the US work with other allies to ensure continued fuel supply if it cuts off its own supply?

That is very clear. It's also in the March 2006 agreement.

If the right to return is exercised, are there any provisions for compensation to India?

There is clear reference to compensation at fair market value. This is not just in the agreement, there is also a provision in US law.

Is India's dedicated reprocessing facility only for US-origin fuel?

This facility will be for reprocessing not just US-origin spent fuel, but for all safeguarded fuel, including fuel from safeguarded Indian reactors. Arrangements and procedures in this regard would be worked out within one year.

Will the safeguards at this dedicated facility be any different from those we've agreed to for other civilian nuclear facilities?

An India-specific safeguards agreement will be negotiated between India and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Safeguards at the dedicated facility will be no different from those at other facilities but will be somewhat more complex. However, standards have already been determined by the IAEA.

What were some of the challenges while negotiating this deal?

Over here (in Washington) there are various lobbies that have been very, very active. You can't change their way of thinking. One is the non-proliferation lobby. People who have made it a career and have an evangelical fervour about their beliefs. It is a strong constituency. Second, there is a constituency that feels that Iran more than Iraq should have been the principal focus of attention of the Bush administration. This constituency, too, is very active, and is completely absorbed with Iran's nuclear programme, and about the dangers of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

How will India react to such pressure on Iran on which there are such strong bipartisan concerns in the US?

We have taken independent positions on Iran at the IAEA and have implemented UN Security Council resolutions. However, unless people are convinced—both here and in India—that this agreement stands on its own merits and is of mutual benefit, it is not going to last. Linking this agreement with any other issue—today it may be Iran, tomorrow it can be some other issue—will be completely counter-productive. It would be totally unrealistic to expect a large and vibrant democracy like India to give up its independence of judgement and action. The sooner this is realised the better.

Were any scenarios discussed under which the US president would waive its right to return, say, if the Chinese or the Pakistanis tested a nuclear device and India made a case for testing? Would India face less consequences then?

No agreement is worked out on the basis of any hypothetical situation. There's no point discussing it. There will be no document which will be beyond what is there in the public domain.

What does the 123 Agreement spell out?

First, this agreement makes it very clear that nuclear cooperation is not going to have any adverse impact on India's strategic nuclear programme. Second, it is not going to have any negative impact whatsoever on India's indigenous research and development programme, or on the independent development of India's three-stage indigenous nuclear power programme.

But does it curtail India's right to conduct a nuclear test?

We haven't gone beyond any commitment we have not made already and which is not on public record.

Details of this deal have been negotiated in public. Is this unprecedented?

The process of negotiating this deal has been much more open than India's agreements with any country. For instance, the NSSP (Next Steps in Strategic Partnership) wasn't discussed in Parliament before it was announced. Nor were a number of agreements with. Pakistan, including those having an important bearing on our security. This deal is also unprecedented because there is no other instance of a single-country exemption from an international regime. The degree of transparency in negotiations too has been unprecedented. No other bilateral agreement has been made public before it's been signed.

This is a historic agreement for the US-India relationship, but how do you explain the criticism?

Why is there so much emotion on both sides? Because, very frankly, you find that the dramatic evolution in the US position has caught most people off balance. From being the principal motivating force and main architect of a global non-proliferation regime established about three decades ago, and aimed principally at India, the US has itself become the principal catalyst for exempting India from this regime. Which means an India-specific exemption from the application of the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers' Group) guidelines, and from the application of the requirement of full-scope safeguards. People haven't been able to come to terms with it.

Given the background of Tarapur, given the cumulative background of old mindsets, questions are being raised—can the Americans be trusted, have they got their own agenda, is this a Trojan horse, what does it really mean? Others who just can't believe what is happening, or do not want to believe what is happening, are trying to minimise its significance by saying one should not link India-US relations to these developments. There are, of course, some in both countries who are Pavlovian in their negative responses, but they constitute a minority. Changes in perception take a longer period of time. So in an interim period there is still a gap between reality and perception. This is one aspect. The second aspect is that this agreement undoubtedly marks the highest point in US-India relations, the highest in the last six decades.

Thirdly, it is the culmination of a process envisioned in the NSSP. Fourthly, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, people recognise that no other country other than the US can bring about a change in the international regime to accommodate India. Fifthly, this is going to have an impact on technological cooperation—in terms of high technologies, dual-use and defence technologies. Sixthly, it will help us diversify our energy portfolio and promote energy security, a vital aspect of our national security as well as indispensable for our continued economic growth. Seventhly, it will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels—which will have a positive environmental impact. Eighthly, in terms of our overall relations between India and the US, this is a historic milestone, which manifests both in terms of symbolism and substance, the strength and dynamism of our strategic partnership. This partnership will be not only of mutual benefit but will have a global impact. I could go on enumerating other positive implications. These have been realised much better in most other countries in the world than in India itself.